It's not so much that we will be entering a post-work society, but rather one where the value of labour as a commodity continues to fall. Let's hope this means more meaningfull, non-alienating work.
What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?
81–90 of 576 posts
Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?
#82> Most jobs aren’t created by private, corporate investment, so raising taxes on corporate income won’t affect employment.
But won't raising taxes on corporate income drive corporation to other jurisdiction? So employment in that company then won't just slowly trail off, but will look like a cliff, dropping to 0.
So isn't that idea ignoring the fact that companies don't have to stick into one place and so we arbitrarily tax them and then provide basic income to everyone in that community?
It goes the other way as well. In some places like West Virginia they've bent backward to accommodate coal mines, easing EPA regulation, destroying the environment and so on. Just to keep companies around. It is like a bad abusive relationship.
Other states for example know the game so they would court and offer incentive for companies to move to their state. I've seen that happen and it was painful for the original community to lose all those jobs.
I agree that we need something like basic income and the accounting is not the only problem, the social and moral aspect is a just as big.
The pessimist in me says we couldn't even meaningfully have a decent health insurance system like other civilized countries. We are a long way from any kind of distributism.
It is good there is talk and discussion about this. The ideological re-framing of this might have to be done very carefully.
One quick example I can think off the top of my head is how in Alaska there was redistribution of income from natural resources. People there probably don't think in terms of "socialism" or "handouts". Well at least the people I know there didn't a few years ago...
Wonder if basic income can be advocated in those terms - "You deserve this because we've created the automation / robots to work for all of us..." or "We want to free people's time so they can volunteer and help their own communities...". Some will play video games and consume drugs perhaps all day, some will decide maybe they want to visit some lonely elderly person in a nursing home or help in the hospital or soup kitchen some more.
Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?
#83The essay suffers from Ted-talk disease: lots of grand gestures and bromides, not as much rigorous thinking. The underlying problem is an important one, however. A little-discussed solution to this problem is one I would like to see tried, distributism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism A book I am currently reading (and enjoying) on it is: https://www.amazon.com/Toward-Truly-Free-Market-Distributist...
> Under such a system, most people would be able to earn a living without having to rely on the use of the property of others to do so. Examples of people earning a living in this way would be farmers who own their own land and related machinery, plumbers who own their own tools, software developers who own their own computer Nonsense. Our abundance is increased by specialization not a lack of it. Specialization and…
> Our abundance is increased by specialization not a lack of it. Specialization and trade allow for higher-order goods to be used as inputs to produce lower-order goods. Farming doesn't just require a tractor and some land. You need fuel to run the tractor, other industries to come together to make the tractor, a merchant to purchase the tractor from, and on and on.
Agree with this. And, as jobs are replaced by computers/automation, there will be other jobs created through specialization; however those new jobs will be new niches that will require people to learn new skills or be trained, and unless the money is there for that retraining, then you have a risk of years of unemployment.
Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we're dealing with an economic system that isn't working. Can you explain this statement further? North Korea and Venezuela's economic systems aren't working. America and most of Europe simply don't allow everyone to consume as much as they would prefer to consume. It sounds like you mean "isn't working" in the sense of "an iPhone 5 isn't working as well as an iPhone 7", not "my car isn't working so I can't get to…
I would say "isn't working" in the sense that the vast majority are struggling to achieve or retain financial security, while a tiny minority have concentrated most of the weath for themselves. Also, the trend continues to concentrate wealth further, making it ever more difficult for the majority. This is a recurring cycle, which has happened many times throughout history. Pretty much every time it ends with the elit…
Are you implying that people have had to struggle less to achieve or retain financial security in the past? During what time period and in what country? Can you share some specific data substantiating the claim?
Average wealth has increased in America over the last 50 years, and real family income has been rising overall since the 1950s. Wealth concentration today is lower than it was in the 1930s. Poverty has fallen since the 1960s. I excerpted these facts from (1). While it is also true that income and wealth inequality has been rising during this time as well, the fact of the rich being well off doesn't necessarily hurt the non-rich, especially if both groups are becoming richer over time, which the data shows is happening in the US.
People are becoming better off over time. Why is our economic system failing us?
Note as well that the average person today has a better quality of life than medieval kings did. Near the official government poverty level, most Americans live quite comfortably (2), and have amenities such as housing, air conditioning, cable TV, mobile phones, etc.
> government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. (2)
(1) http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-...
(2) http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-pov...
Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
"everybody it [is] fully satisfied with what they have and there's nothing more that they'd buy if they had more money." That's the idea. Let's for the moment, just assume that AI and robots and some other technologies are ridiculously productive sometime in the future and we solve all sorts of problems and have the resources to provide everyone with everything they want. At that point it's not a question of giving e…
> whether or not we decide to distribute our plentiful resources You can already decide to do this today, and the government will even reward you for doing so. What you're really talking about is redistributing others' resources .
A non-zero number of businesses already do this. For example, where I presently work I don't get paid for overtime or public holidays in spite of the law requiring that I do.
I complained, and I was told that if I don't like it I can quit. I said that I would be going to the regulatory body, and I was outright threatened with physical harm: "Bad things happen to people who do that."
Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?
#86There is a difference between a job you like, and a job you do because you believe "work sets you free" or because you believe work is a some sort of value or a necessary pain everybody has to take part in. I'm unemployed and I really don't think I have any duties to work in fast food or to deliver pizza because I must contribute. If I decide I can live poor and be happy with welfare, I will. I think it's a great thi…
You don't think you have any duty to try not to live off welfare, as long as not many people do it?
Why the double negative? Are you that pessimistic? Edit: Make that a triple.
Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?
#87At this point I've already come to accept that fulltime labor for everyone is simply not going to happen. We just don't need it. The big question is will the majority be able to maintain enough power to obtain income for those who aren't working, or will we see some kind of serious class warfare/starving populations? This is a huge question in human history and it remains to be seen how we as a species are going to a…
> fulltime labor for everyone is simply not going to happen. We just don't need it.
and from the article
> there’s not enough work to go around
I disagree.
There's not enough paid employment to go around, but there is an enormous amount of work that needs to be done!
Our entire society needs to be weaned off its carbon dependence if we want humans to survive the next century. This will involve at the very least the wholesale transformation of our transport and energy systems, and probably construction too. We should be putting massive numbers of people to work on solving and fixing this, and there's no point leaving people unemployed while there's still work that needs to be done. Whether we can organise society in time to achieve this is the real question. Once we've fixed the environment and created a truly sustainable civilization, then we can talk about labor that is surplus.
Other work that will be in increasing demand is healthcare and elderly care (especially given the aging populations of most countries). I don't see robots replacing humans for this any time soon, and we are far from the point where we have enough health / personal care for everyone. Plenty more examples of work that's needed but not currently being done can be found with a bit of creative thought...
Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
"This is economics 101" is exactly the problem: we're dealing with an economic system that isn't working. Questioning economics 101 is precisely what's needed, and I'd argue that while your arguments are sound, they've been treated as absolutes, which they're not. This makes as much sense as saying "You say that my magical spacecraft won't work due to the laws of physics, but physics is exactly the problem: We can't…
Begging the question; economics is not a physical science where you can run A/B tests on an economy and find results. It's a social study, mostly. As someone who studied it for years , institutionally and on my own, I can tell you that economists do not agree on any basic laws except that people have a long list of wants and that not all of them can be satisfied. Many economists are questioning their 101s lately. Loo…
Most (all?) bad economic policies come from denial of economics 101. For example, fixed currency exchange rates. And, of course, wage and price controls.
Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"work sets you free" As a side note, recently there's been a drive to not normalize fascist slogans or ideas in mainstream politics. Among those, "arbeit macht frei" is a particularly offensive one, since it was written on the gates of Auschwitz. Just saying. When someone quotes this kind of phrase to us, we should remind them where they got it from and refuse to treat it as normal. >I'm unemployed and I really don'…
They're just words, no?
It's just history, no?
Although the "Just saying" part (from the GP) irritates me. You're not "just saying," because if you were there would be no need to explain that to us. It's little more than an underscoring of the passive-aggressive intent of a statement.
Re: What if jobs are not the solution but the problem?
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Begging the question; economics is not a physical science where you can run A/B tests on an economy and find results. It's a social study, mostly. As someone who studied it for years , institutionally and on my own, I can tell you that economists do not agree on any basic laws except that people have a long list of wants and that not all of them can be satisfied. Many economists are questioning their 101s lately. Loo…
Can you give one (preferably two) specific examples of respected economists who are questioning 101 level econ principles? I've studied economics at the college level. I follow economics news and am not aware of economists questioning 101 level principles. Many of these are relatively simple and intuitively obvious ones (once you wrap your head around them), much like 101 level maths. Consequently I am inclined to di…
(I am not an economist, never took a class in economics, but am interested in the field and like to read about it, so talke all of this w/ a grain of salt)
It is not so much about questioning economics 101 principles as much as questioning their validity in the various economies. Taking the example of comparative advantage and more general trade theory, there are well known, respected economists (e.g. D. Rodrik) who have argued against the scope of their validity.
There also seems to be a debate about how 101 is taught in schools, see e.g. [1].
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/05/13/...